The two common places Jesus is said to have been born are Nazareth and Bethlehem, but why is Capernaum excluded?
Bethlehem is usually dismissed as a later tradition in order to make Jesus better fit as the Messiah.
But why is it thought that Nazareth is the birthplace of Jesus?
Mark’s Gospel has Capernaum as the hometown of Jesus, and it never actually says that Jesus is from Nazareth (I have heard that Mark 1:9 is an interpolation).
Mark 2:1 explicitly says that Capernaum is Jesus’ home
Mark 9:33 makes Jesus seem at home in Capernaum.
Mark 6 has Jesus teaching in a synagogue at his hometown right after establishing that Capernaum has a synagogue.
There also seems to be indication of an early Nazarene/Nazorean sect, and there is a tradition that James was a Nazirite (and the connection between Jesus and John the Nazirite).
Is it not conceivable that Jesus was a Nazirite/Nazorean from Capernaum, but the Gospel authors didn’t like that and so tried to make it seem as if saying Jesus was a Nazirite/Nazorean didn’t mean he was from that sect but from the city of Nazareth?
Even if this is ultimately wrong, I just don’t understand why people seem to think the options for where Jesus was born are Nazareth or Bethlehem when it seems like Capernaum is an option as well.
But what about Mark 1:21-24?
Capernaum is identified as the home of Jesus’ chief disciples and does seem to have been his base of operations. Which would make perfect sense if as Mark says, Jesus had been rejected in his own home town – Nazareth. In all our sources “Jesus of Nazareth” seems to come out like one word; strange if this was not his home town since that formulation was the common way to identify people in those times.
Only in the translation does that say Jesus of Nazareth. It actually better translates to Jesus the Nazarene. It is usually translated to Jesus of Nazareth because it is assumed that Jesus is from Nazareth and not from the Nazarene sect.
In fact, Mark 1:9 is the only time where we see the word “Nazareth” in Mark, otherwise it is Nazarene. The issue is that Nazarene can mean “of Nazara”, not “of Nazareth”, or it can mean the Nazarene sect.
Furthermore, Mark 1:9 is strange in that it says “Nazareth of Galilee”. Mark never does this when talking about cities. He only says the city name, never X of Y, except in this one instance.
So, while Mark does not seem to indicate Jesus from Nazareth, it does indicate a Jesus of Capernaum. The verses I mentioned are just a few of them. Mark 2:15, for example, says that Jesus’ house was in Capernaum.
Even Matthew does say that Jesus did move to Capernaum, but does so in a way that him having lived in Nazareth explains why he was called a Nazarene. It almost seems as if Matthew was embarrassed or didn’t like that Jesus was part of the Nazarene sect and had to find an alternate way of explaining why Jesus was called a Nazarene.
Interesting speculations but thin on the ground.
Sure it ” better translates to Jesus the Nazarene” if you’ve already decided that’s what it means. Otherwise all you can reasonably do is note the ambiguity. And what reason do you really have to think Mark 1:9 is an interpolation other than you’ve already decided on the “Nazarene” view? Nazareth makes perfect sense in the context of the story. Mark has placed us in Judea along the Jordan River with John and then he introduces Jesus into the story.
Once again in context it is clear Capernaum was Jesus’ base of operations. But he was rejected in his home town, right? Makes perfect sense if he got kicked out of Nazareth and relocated to where his chief disciples and their families lived.
Why would the gospel writers be embarrassed if Jesus was in fact a member of the sect of the Nazarenes? They were known for their exemplary piety after all.
AoSS said
Only in the translation does that say Jesus of Nazareth. It actually better translates to Jesus the Nazarene. It is usually translated to Jesus of Nazareth because it is assumed that Jesus is from Nazareth and not from the Nazarene sect.In fact, Mark 1:9 is the only time where we see the word “Nazareth” in Mark, otherwise it is Nazarene. The issue is that Nazarene can mean “of Nazara”, not “of Nazareth”, or it can mean the Nazarene sect.
Furthermore, Mark 1:9 is strange in that it says “Nazareth of Galilee”. Mark never does this when talking about cities. He only says the city name, never X of Y, except in this one instance.
So, while Mark does not seem to indicate Jesus from Nazareth, it does indicate a Jesus of Capernaum. The verses I mentioned are just a few of them. Mark 2:15, for example, says that Jesus’ house was in Capernaum.
Even Matthew does say that Jesus did move to Capernaum, but does so in a way that him having lived in Nazareth explains why he was called a Nazarene. It almost seems as if Matthew was embarrassed or didn’t like that Jesus was part of the Nazarene sect and had to find an alternate way of explaining why Jesus was called a Nazarene.
Mark probably had to add “of Galilee” to explain where it was, because Nazareth was such an insignificant place, while the others were better known.
Matthew connects the town name with a near similar-sounding concept from OT (Judges 13:7) in order to show that Jesus is prophesied by the Scripture. It is a method of reducing the embarrassment of the insignificant birthplace.
So there is no doubt that the terms Nazarenos, Nazoraios and Nazaraios by the gospel writes are intended to be adjectival forms of an underlying Greek term for “of Nazareth”.
Stephen said
Sure it ” better translates to Jesus the Nazarene” if you’ve already decided that’s what it means.
No, it literally translates to Jesus the Nazarene. The only way to jump to it meaning Jesus of Nazareth is if you assume that Nazarene=from Nazareth.
Stephen said
And what reason do you really have to think Mark 1:9 is an interpolation other than you’ve already decided on the “Nazarene” view?
Poorly worded originally. I don’t think all of Mark 1:9 was interpolated into the text but that there was editing of Mark 1:9.
1) It is the only time where Nazareth is mentioned, every other instance that gets close only says Jesus the Nazarene (they are different words as an fyi).
2) The equivalent of this instance is lacking from both Matthew and Luke. There doesn’t appear to be any reason for why this would be taken out.
3) This verse is the only time more detail is given on where a city is, “Nazareth of Galilee”, when every other city mentioned in the Gospel does not have this occurrence.
4) This verse also contains the only instance where “Jesus” is not preceded by a definitive article.
Stephen said
Once again in context it is clear Capernaum was Jesus’ base of operations. But he was rejected in his home town, right?
It is also clear that Jesus lived in Capernaum. Also, where in Mark does it say he was rejected in his hometown?
Stephen said
Why would the gospel writers be embarrassed if Jesus was in fact a member of the sect of the Nazarenes? They were known for their exemplary piety after all.
This I am not too sure on. There could be certain teachings of the Nazarenes that were disliked by later Christians. Maybe by having him as a Nazarene it would mean he learned what he taught from man and not God.
The reason of why is a hard one, but that it happened is easier to show.
Furthermore, even if Mark 1:9 is purely authentic, it still doesn’t actually say Jesus is from Nazareth. It would simply be Mark’s Gospel actually mentioning Nazareth, and this allowing for Jesus the Nazarene to possibly mean Jesus of Nazareth.
Stephen said
I forgot to add the suggestion that this might be an excellent question for Prof Ehrman who is after all the expert on this stuff.
I wanted to ask here first. Get background info sorted out first, see if it is actually worth asking, etc.
gavriel said
Mark probably had to add “of Galilee” to explain where it was, because Nazareth was such an insignificant place, while the others were better known.
But you have to assume this. This is a unique instance in Mark in which we don’t even see Nazareth mentioned in Luke or Matthew’ parallel of this verse.
Matthew connects the town name with a near similar-sounding concept from OT (Judges 13:7) in order to show that Jesus is prophesied by the Scripture. It is a method of reducing the embarrassment of the insignificant birthplace.
That is the mainstream idea, yes, but it could also be an embarrassment of Jesus being a Nazarene and having to explain why Jesus was known as a Nazarene. He then makes it so that Nazarene actually means from Nazareth and not from the Nazarene sect.
So there is no doubt that the terms Nazarenos, Nazoraios and Nazaraios by the gospel writes are intended to be adjectival forms of an underlying Greek term for “of Nazareth”.
You can’t look at how one Gospel writer uses a word and infer it on other Gospel writers.
Under the “Jesus of Capernaum” hypothesis the terms are later reinterpreted to mean “from Nazareth” in order to justify Jesus being known as a Nazarene without him being part of that sect.
Mark never indicates Jesus was from Nazareth. Mark does indicate time and time again that Jesus lived in and was from Capernaum. Mark may not have even mentioned Nazareth as 1:9 is suspect.
AoSS said
But you have to assume this. This is a unique instance in Mark in which we don’t even see Nazareth mentioned in Luke or Matthew’ parallel of this verse.
That is the mainstream idea, yes, but it could also be an embarrassment of Jesus being a Nazarene and having to explain why Jesus was known as a Nazarene. He then makes it so that Nazarene actually means from Nazareth and not from the Nazarene sect.
You can’t look at how one Gospel writer uses a word and infer it on other Gospel writers.
Under the “Jesus of Capernaum” hypothesis the terms are later reinterpreted to mean “from Nazareth” in order to justify Jesus being known as a Nazarene without him being part of that sect.
Mark never indicates Jesus was from Nazareth. Mark does indicate time and time again that Jesus lived in and was from Capernaum. Mark may not have even mentioned Nazareth as 1:9 is suspect.
It is a very good assumption, since Nazareth is historically and archeologically considered a very minor place compared to Caphernaum.
It is the typical style of Matthew to produce allusions to OT based on weak or superficial parallels.
There is no text critical evidence for Mark 1:9 being suspect.
gavriel said
It is a very good assumption, since Nazareth is historically and archeologically considered a very minor place compared to Caphernaum.
How is it a “very good assumption”?
This is literally the only time Mark does this, with any city mentioned.
The places where this verse is used by Matthew and Luke don’t contain “Nazareth” at all.
It is the typical style of Matthew to produce allusions to OT based on weak or superficial parallels.
There is no text critical evidence for Mark 1:9 being suspect.
To copy what I have said before about Mark 1:9
1) It is the only time where Nazareth is mentioned, every other instance that gets close only says Jesus the Nazarene (they are different words as an fyi).
2) The equivalent of this instance is lacking from both Matthew and Luke. There doesn’t appear to be any reason for why this would be taken out.
3) This verse is the only time more detail is given on where a city is, “Nazareth of Galilee”, when every other city mentioned in the Gospel does not have this occurrence.
4) This verse also contains the only instance [in Mark] where “Jesus” is not preceded by a definitive article.
There are some reasons to suspect that Mark 1:9 has been edited. And even if it wasn’t, Mark still never explicitly says that Jesus is from Nazareth, all it does is make it so that “Nazareth” appeared in Mark, giving some credence to the possibility that “Jesus the Nazarene” meant “Jesus of Nazareth” instead of “Jesus from the Nazarene sect”, but even then it is not definitive.
AoSS said
Furthermore, even if Mark 1:9 is purely authentic, it still doesn’t actually say Jesus is from Nazareth. It would simply be Mark’s Gospel actually mentioning Nazareth, and this allowing for Jesus the Nazarene to possibly mean Jesus of Nazareth.
So what would be the point of interpolation? I don’t see any value in claiming he was from Nazareth as opposed to some purported sect that may or may not have existed at the time. The passage does say he came from Nazareth which is just as much a way of saying that is where a person is from. Why exactly does every passage that refers to
Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, if you like, have to be qualified by explicit claims that he was born there? What evidence is there that Jesus belonged to some special sect called Nazarene’s (who were not also from Nazareth)? The entire thing seems to be based on an artificial ambiguity that “is not definitive” Is there any evidence that this sect existed at the time of his baptism?Is there any “definitive” or even properly plausible evidence that either Jesus or his brother James participated in such a sect?
The first time, this designation was used, according to wikipedia, is by Luke in Acts,(Thus as far as we know, Mark has no knowledge of this) but the larger question is why you think Nazarene (even in the odd chance that it refers to some sect) doesn’t mean it’s adherents weren’t from Nazareth. Why doesn’t it mean a sect from Nazareth? If Mark wanted to avoid confusing Jesus with some alleged sect, why not just say he came from Capernaum? Why isn’t Jesus more often referred to as Jesus of Capernaum?
P.S I’m pretty sure Prof Ehrman deals with this in DJE.
P.P.S ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Sorry, don’t have much time to respond right now, but here is my response as of now:
Mark 1:9 is the best case that Jesus was from Nazareth in Mark, but all it really indicates is that he was in Nazareth, not that he was from there. Furthermore, I do not know why the interpolation would have happened, but there is reason to suspect that Mark 1:9 contains interpolation.
I am not saying that Mark has to constantly say that Jesus was born in Nazareth either. What I am saying is that Mark only calls Jesus a Nazarene, not “Jesus of Nazareth”.
Pliny does have an obscure reference to the Nazerini in Syria, and this reference is from the same time Mark was said to have been written. These “Nazerini” are not “from Nazareth”.
In fact, the Nazarites also aren’t all “from Nazareth”.
We can’t be 100% sure that the Nazarene sect existed before Jesus, but we do have good reason to think it existed in the mid-first century and that it could be older.
AoSS said
To copy what I have said before about Mark 1:9
1) It is the only time where Nazareth is mentioned, every other instance that gets close only says Jesus the Nazarene (they are different words as an fyi).
2) The equivalent of this instance is lacking from both Matthew and Luke. There doesn’t appear to be any reason for why this would be taken out.
3) This verse is the only time more detail is given on where a city is, “Nazareth of Galilee”, when every other city mentioned in the Gospel does not have this occurrence.
4) This verse also contains the only instance [in Mark] where “Jesus” is not preceded by a definitive article.
There are some reasons to suspect that Mark 1:9 has been edited. And even if it wasn’t, Mark still never explicitly says that Jesus is from Nazareth, all it does is make it so that “Nazareth” appeared in Mark, giving some credence to the possibility that “Jesus the Nazarene” meant “Jesus of Nazareth” instead of “Jesus from the Nazarene sect”, but even then it is not definitive.
1. ‘Nazarene’ is not related to ‘nazirite’. It is clearly and adjectival form of “from Nazareth’. An expert in ancient greek would have have to tell us, though.
2. If the adjectival form was the most convenient in most instances, that would explain it. If the audiences of Matthew and Luke by this time were familar with the term, they would know. If Mark felt that his audience needed a more precise explanation of what Nazarene meant, that would explain why it comes initially. By the time Matthew and Luke copied Mark, the term may have been well established as a cliche in Christian communities.
3. I have already explained that. It was probably natural for Mark to explain the origin of the adjectival expression, when the underlying place name was that of an unknown village. Well known towns wouldn’t have to be given a regional reference.
4. Why should it matter.
Interpolation theory: From a methodological viewpoint it is indeed a very week statement to say that something is interpolated because it contradicts one possible interpretation of the remaining Jesus-references. That is circular reasoning. In fact, since 1:9 has no text-critical evidence for interpolation, I would rather say the opposite: It rules out that particular interpretation.
You keep saying that there is no indication of interpolation, but I pointed out a few.
Three things about this verse that are unique and different than the entire rest of Mark AND the fact that the equivalent passages in Matthew and Luke are missing “Nazareth”.
I’m not saying that it is interpolated because otherwise the Jesus from Capernaum hypothesis is falsified (and it wouldn’t be, it would just be weaker). I am saying it because of three unique aspects about this verse not found in the rest of Mark (only mention of Nazareth instead of Nazarene, only time Mark gets specific on where a city is, only time Jesus isn’t followed by a definitive article) and the fact that “Nazareth” is missing from the Matthew and Luke equivalent passages. You keep saying that these are “no big deal”, but the fact that all of these happen in the same exact passage makes it suspect. Maybe you don’t feel it is enough to justify the assumption that it is actually interpolated, but to say that there is absolutely no reason to even suspect interpolation is just ridiculous.
AoSS said
You keep saying that there is no indication of interpolation, but I pointed out a few.Three things about this verse that are unique and different than the entire rest of Mark AND the fact that the equivalent passages in Matthew and Luke are missing “Nazareth”.
I’m not saying that it is interpolated because otherwise the Jesus from Capernaum hypothesis is falsified (and it wouldn’t be, it would just be weaker). I am saying it because of three unique aspects about this verse not found in the rest of Mark (only mention of Nazareth instead of Nazarene, only time Mark gets specific on where a city is, only time Jesus isn’t followed by a definitive article) and the fact that “Nazareth” is missing from the Matthew and Luke equivalent passages. You keep saying that these are “no big deal”, but the fact that all of these happen in the same exact passage makes it suspect. Maybe you don’t feel it is enough to justify the assumption that it is actually interpolated, but to say that there is absolutely no reason to even suspect interpolation is just ridiculous.
Right, there are unique properties of very, very many passages in the bible, but that alone doesn’t justify a claim for interpolation. First, you have to look for other explanations, since there are no text critical reasons for believing it. And if one such trivial explanation is found, that should settle the case. It is in fact perfectly reasonable that an introduction gives a precise meaning for a term that it used in a simpler way in the rest of the gospel. That is how most documents introduces terms that otherwise are not quite clear. Imagine what would have happened if Mark did not say “came from Nazareth in Galilee”, but just something like “.. in those days Jesus the Nazarene was baptized by John…” and Mark was our only source for the life of Jesus. It would not work properly. The community newbie listening to a communal reading would be left puzzled.
How is the introduction of the term in Matthew? That’s, 2:23, spelling out Nazareth as a noun. Likewise with Luke 1:26. The synoptics all have a Greek noun , a town name in the very first mention of the concept, exactly as Mark.
The next important factor is that Jesus as unearthed by modern critical historians does not fit in with any other reasonable, possible interpretation of the Greek terms for Nazarene used in the Gospel.
To find an interpolation, you need to show that a verse is missing in some old manuscripts, or that it is moving around out of order compared to others. This needs to be combined with strong evidence for the verse being anachronistic or out of context or difficult to reconcile with the overall gospel message. If you cannot do anything of this, then you have to accept it as a hard fact until more evidence shows up.
AoSS said
Mark 1:9 is the best case that Jesus was from Nazareth in Mark, but all it really indicates is that he was in Nazareth, not that he was from there. Furthermore, I do not know why the interpolation would have happened, but there is reason to suspect that Mark 1:9 contains interpolation.
I am not saying that Mark has to constantly say that Jesus was born in Nazareth either. What I am saying is that Mark only calls Jesus a Nazarene, not “Jesus of Nazareth”.
Yea, it sort of does. You take references like Jesus the Nazarene as meaning something other than what it plainly says. If I said Ivan the Russian, you might argue that doesn’t mean he was Russian, since we didn’t state that Ivan was born in Russia. Yes, the statement “Jesus came from Nazareth” might just mean he was on his way to see John and cut through Nazareth (I don’t see why it would be worth it for Mark to mention if that were the case) but you ignore the strong possibility that saying he came from Nazareth probably had more to it than just whatever, minimal amount of meaning we impart to it. So we have Jesus, by your own admission coming from Nazareth, referred to as a nazarene,but not from there SOMEHOW. Oh, right, because there was some sect referred to as nazarene (Who must not have been from Nazareth) and also that Pliny the Younger, at the ripe age of 10 using the word Nazerini which we all know Jesus liked to have a bowl of Nazerini w/ mushroom sauce prior to hitting the road. He was after all, a contemporary of Matthew and Luke. But where are references to men from some a sect called Nazarenes. Why no Stephen the nazarene who was really from Miami?
Pliny does have an obscure reference to the Nazerini in Syria, and this reference is from the same time Mark was said to have been written. These “Nazerini” are not “from Nazareth”.
In fact, the Nazarites also aren’t all “from Nazareth”.
We can’t be 100% sure that the Nazarene sect existed before Jesus, but we do have good reason to think it existed in the mid-first century and that it could be older.
Ironically, you’re entire analysis is based on COULD BE. There was once a sect in Germany referred to as Nazis so we don’t know if
Jesus of Nazareth was really a reference to his being a nazi. To Paraphrase the Great Uncle Buck,
“Wait a minute, Nazarene, Nazi. Is there a little similarity? Whoa, I think there is! Ha ha ha.”
Furthermore, I do not know why the interpolation would have happened
Which means you have no evidence. Case closed.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert